A Simple Reminder
06-09-2023, 05:51 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
Originally Posted by PA31
There’s a lot of talk about concessions when nobodies even seen the contract.
I’ll withhold judgement until it comes out.
I’ll withhold judgement until it comes out.
06-09-2023, 07:31 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 130
I’ll start out by saying, I really don’t care about the outcome of this CBA cycle. I could live on what I have now and what my retirement will be when I go. I think it’s very likely that I’ll retire under whatever we have after this current process is complete. But if I had to go “as is” today, that would be fine. I can wait if that’s what’s required. But I’m going to be realistic as well.
If only all the genius-du-jours had access to all the same information the NC, our elected reps and officers had throughout this process. Why did we even put them in a position of elected and appointed power if we all planned to do was immediately second guess them when none of us have had access to the process or the same information over the last two-plus years. It’s easy to lay down ultimatums that sound good without any real information to back them up.
What are “industry leading pay rates”? Is that a black and white definition? Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing? Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do? Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)? Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)? If so, fine – make your choice.
What’s a “concession”? What’s Delta’s definition of a concession? Just because they say their contract has none, is that really the case? Is “no concessions” realistic when one airline is dealing with a contract that has seen various iterations since almost the inception of ALPA when ours is barely two decades old? Once a CBA gets to the point where QOL issues are agreed upon and only pay, duration and other minor issues are a part of the equation, isn’t it easier to demand “no concessions”? Do you really think we were in a position to create only gains in a negotiation that ultimately ended up under the scrutiny of the NMB? Are the same vocal minority who spent the last two years-plus justifying “flying smarter” by accepting draft trips or AVA in place of their normal line trips now demanding results from our negotiating committee that are realistically impossible under the weight of those same choices? Did those “smart flyers” ever stop to think what their actions looked like to the company negotiators looking past PM and his team at our pilot group to see how unified we all were? Or did they simply assume that their choices would be viewed in the same light as another like minded pilot and ignore how it might come across to the actual target audience that really mattered. Many of you expect perfect results from our NC when your very actions put them in a position to have to bargain as reasonable members of a negotiation, not aggressors in a hold-up. Our company has never faced a unified, militant pilot group since we unionized and every contract cycle that has come to pass has offered an ever-weaker example. This time we had a chance but it was diluted by many of the very same pilots who now demand results from our NC that fail to acknowledge the reality created by their own choices. If those of your who opted to “fly smarter” don’t think your actions emboldened the company to delay and use their typical stall tactics, you’re sadly mistaken.
We’re fortunate that we didn’t get a quick deal in 2021. Whatever we agreed to would be far short of where the bar is today. Assuming our TA is approved by the MEC, if we get offered a logical rate that considers the reality of our pilot group and aircraft flown in comparison to our peers and their banded aircraft rates, I’ll consider it. I’ll weigh that against our improved retirement and other positive metrics in our TA and make my choice.
What I’m not going to do is listen to a bunch of alarmists who have less information than our elected representatives, officers and the NC. As smart and informed as you think you are, you’re not – period – dot. At this point, with no official information released, you’re doing nothing but undermining our own side in this negotiation. If this was just a matter of listening to 6000 individual opinions created with whatever information each individual pilot chose to gather in order to form their opinion, we would be far worse off than we are today. We elect these pilot reps to utilize the resources our dues can provide and make the best decisions on our behalf they can. Why would we charge them with that responsibility and then immediately undermine them with public discourse based on lesser information?
Finally, regarding scope: If you think what are effectively gentlemen's agreements at UPS or Atlas have any bearing on our situation at FedEx, you are sadly mistaken. Extraterritorial flying that doesn’t touch the US is unenforceable under the RLA. You can deny that if you want, but you’re incorrect. The fact that UPS or Atlas has decided to put a “feel good” statement in their contract with both sides acknowledging the lack of enforceable language in a US court of law but agreeing to abide by it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Arbitration isn’t the same thing as dealing with a court of law. The fact that Atlas was successful in arbitration over their scope language doesn’t mean the same results would occur with FedEx. If FedEx decided to take the scope argument to US court, they will win because there are four clear case law decisions supporting their claim. UPS or Atlas’s respect for their pilots CBA in no way transfers to our situation. UPS or Atlas have the option to ignore that CBA language and pursue their goal in a US court of law at any time. They would win based on previous case law. If UPS or Atlas choose not to enter that fight, that’s on them. Anyone who thinks that FedEx is unwilling to take this situation to a US court and do whatever is necessary to prevail is either new or uninformed. A “gentlemen’s’ agreement” with our employer is not worthy of any give-back or negotiation. Section 1 is TA’ed and closed. We have no hope of re-opening that and demanding the ability to force FedEx to put an over-sized aircraft on a route with a freight demand that doesn’t support that size aircraft or not move freight in the belly of pax airline X. They have never agreed to that and likely never will. When the situation dictates a 757 on a Europe route, they’ll put one on that route. Losing flying temporarily to ASL due to lack of demand doesn’t mean that change is permanent. What many seem to ignore, is that our current domestic (enforceable) scope language is highly effective in protecting our flying that touches the US. The scope penalties we have in place make it far more expensive for the company to outsource our flying that touches the US, thus protecting our flying that doesn’t fall under the extraterritorial label.
I honestly don’t care how you vote. But please do your best to vote informed.
If only all the genius-du-jours had access to all the same information the NC, our elected reps and officers had throughout this process. Why did we even put them in a position of elected and appointed power if we all planned to do was immediately second guess them when none of us have had access to the process or the same information over the last two-plus years. It’s easy to lay down ultimatums that sound good without any real information to back them up.
What are “industry leading pay rates”? Is that a black and white definition? Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing? Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do? Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)? Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)? If so, fine – make your choice.
What’s a “concession”? What’s Delta’s definition of a concession? Just because they say their contract has none, is that really the case? Is “no concessions” realistic when one airline is dealing with a contract that has seen various iterations since almost the inception of ALPA when ours is barely two decades old? Once a CBA gets to the point where QOL issues are agreed upon and only pay, duration and other minor issues are a part of the equation, isn’t it easier to demand “no concessions”? Do you really think we were in a position to create only gains in a negotiation that ultimately ended up under the scrutiny of the NMB? Are the same vocal minority who spent the last two years-plus justifying “flying smarter” by accepting draft trips or AVA in place of their normal line trips now demanding results from our negotiating committee that are realistically impossible under the weight of those same choices? Did those “smart flyers” ever stop to think what their actions looked like to the company negotiators looking past PM and his team at our pilot group to see how unified we all were? Or did they simply assume that their choices would be viewed in the same light as another like minded pilot and ignore how it might come across to the actual target audience that really mattered. Many of you expect perfect results from our NC when your very actions put them in a position to have to bargain as reasonable members of a negotiation, not aggressors in a hold-up. Our company has never faced a unified, militant pilot group since we unionized and every contract cycle that has come to pass has offered an ever-weaker example. This time we had a chance but it was diluted by many of the very same pilots who now demand results from our NC that fail to acknowledge the reality created by their own choices. If those of your who opted to “fly smarter” don’t think your actions emboldened the company to delay and use their typical stall tactics, you’re sadly mistaken.
We’re fortunate that we didn’t get a quick deal in 2021. Whatever we agreed to would be far short of where the bar is today. Assuming our TA is approved by the MEC, if we get offered a logical rate that considers the reality of our pilot group and aircraft flown in comparison to our peers and their banded aircraft rates, I’ll consider it. I’ll weigh that against our improved retirement and other positive metrics in our TA and make my choice.
What I’m not going to do is listen to a bunch of alarmists who have less information than our elected representatives, officers and the NC. As smart and informed as you think you are, you’re not – period – dot. At this point, with no official information released, you’re doing nothing but undermining our own side in this negotiation. If this was just a matter of listening to 6000 individual opinions created with whatever information each individual pilot chose to gather in order to form their opinion, we would be far worse off than we are today. We elect these pilot reps to utilize the resources our dues can provide and make the best decisions on our behalf they can. Why would we charge them with that responsibility and then immediately undermine them with public discourse based on lesser information?
Finally, regarding scope: If you think what are effectively gentlemen's agreements at UPS or Atlas have any bearing on our situation at FedEx, you are sadly mistaken. Extraterritorial flying that doesn’t touch the US is unenforceable under the RLA. You can deny that if you want, but you’re incorrect. The fact that UPS or Atlas has decided to put a “feel good” statement in their contract with both sides acknowledging the lack of enforceable language in a US court of law but agreeing to abide by it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Arbitration isn’t the same thing as dealing with a court of law. The fact that Atlas was successful in arbitration over their scope language doesn’t mean the same results would occur with FedEx. If FedEx decided to take the scope argument to US court, they will win because there are four clear case law decisions supporting their claim. UPS or Atlas’s respect for their pilots CBA in no way transfers to our situation. UPS or Atlas have the option to ignore that CBA language and pursue their goal in a US court of law at any time. They would win based on previous case law. If UPS or Atlas choose not to enter that fight, that’s on them. Anyone who thinks that FedEx is unwilling to take this situation to a US court and do whatever is necessary to prevail is either new or uninformed. A “gentlemen’s’ agreement” with our employer is not worthy of any give-back or negotiation. Section 1 is TA’ed and closed. We have no hope of re-opening that and demanding the ability to force FedEx to put an over-sized aircraft on a route with a freight demand that doesn’t support that size aircraft or not move freight in the belly of pax airline X. They have never agreed to that and likely never will. When the situation dictates a 757 on a Europe route, they’ll put one on that route. Losing flying temporarily to ASL due to lack of demand doesn’t mean that change is permanent. What many seem to ignore, is that our current domestic (enforceable) scope language is highly effective in protecting our flying that touches the US. The scope penalties we have in place make it far more expensive for the company to outsource our flying that touches the US, thus protecting our flying that doesn’t fall under the extraterritorial label.
I honestly don’t care how you vote. But please do your best to vote informed.
Last edited by Emmerson Bigs; 06-09-2023 at 08:10 AM.
06-09-2023, 08:46 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs
I’ll start out by saying, I really don’t care about the outcome of this CBA cycle. I could live on what I have now and what my retirement will be when I go. I think it’s very likely that I’ll retire under whatever we have after this current process is complete. But if I had to go “as is” today, that would be fine. I can wait if that’s what’s required. But I’m going to be realistic as well.
If only all the genius-du-jours had access to all the same information the NC, our elected reps and officers had throughout this process. Why did we even put them in a position of elected and appointed power if we all planned to do was immediately second guess them when none of us have had access to the process or the same information over the last two-plus years. It’s easy to lay down ultimatums that sound good without any real information to back them up.
What are “industry leading pay rates”? Is that a black and white definition? Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing? Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do? Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)? Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)? If so, fine – make your choice.
What’s a “concession”? What’s Delta’s definition of a concession? Just because they say their contract has none, is that really the case? Is “no concessions” realistic when one airline is dealing with a contract that has seen various iterations since almost the inception of ALPA when ours is barely two decades old? Once a CBA gets to the point where QOL issues are agreed upon and only pay, duration and other minor issues are a part of the equation, isn’t it easier to demand “no concessions”? Do you really think we were in a position to create only gains in a negotiation that ultimately ended up under the scrutiny of the NMB? Are the same vocal minority who spent the last two years-plus justifying “flying smarter” by accepting draft trips or AVA in place of their normal line trips now demanding results from our negotiating committee that are realistically impossible under the weight of those same choices? Did those “smart flyers” ever stop to think what their actions looked like to the company negotiators looking past PM and his team at our pilot group to see how unified we all were? Or did they simply assume that their choices would be viewed in the same light as another like minded pilot and ignore how it might come across to the actual target audience that really mattered. Many of you expect perfect results from our NC when your very actions put them in a position to have to bargain as reasonable members of a negotiation, not aggressors in a hold-up. Our company has never faced a unified, militant pilot group since we unionized and every contract cycle that has come to pass has offered an ever-weaker example. This time we had a chance but it was diluted by many of the very same pilots who now demand results from our NC that fail to acknowledge the reality created by their own choices. If those of your who opted to “fly smarter” don’t think your actions emboldened the company to delay and use their typical stall tactics, you’re sadly mistaken.
We’re fortunate that we didn’t get a quick deal in 2021. Whatever we agreed to would be far short of where the bar is today. Assuming our TA is approved by the MEC, if we get offered a logical rate that considers the reality of our pilot group and aircraft flown in comparison to our peers and their banded aircraft rates, I’ll consider it. I’ll weigh that against our improved retirement and other positive metrics in our TA and make my choice.
What I’m not going to do is listen to a bunch of alarmists who have less information than our elected representatives, officers and the NC. As smart and informed as you think you are, you’re not – period – dot. At this point, with no official information released, you’re doing nothing but undermining our own side in this negotiation. If this was just a matter of listening to 6000 individual opinions created with whatever information each individual pilot chose to gather in order to form their opinion, we would be far worse off than we are today. We elect these pilot reps to utilize the resources our dues can provide and make the best decisions on our behalf they can. Why would we charge them with that responsibility and then immediately undermine them with public discourse based on lesser information?
Finally, regarding scope: If you think what are effectively gentlemen's agreements at UPS or Atlas have any bearing on our situation at FedEx, you are sadly mistaken. Extraterritorial flying that doesn’t touch the US is unenforceable under the RLA. You can deny that if you want, but you’re incorrect. The fact that UPS or Atlas has decided to put a “feel good” statement in their contract with both sides acknowledging the lack of enforceable language in a US court of law but agreeing to abide by it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Arbitration isn’t the same thing as dealing with a court of law. The fact that Atlas was successful in arbitration over their scope language doesn’t mean the same results would occur with FedEx. If FedEx decided to take the scope argument to US court, they will win because there are four clear case law decisions supporting their claim. UPS or Atlas’s respect for their pilots CBA in no way transfers to our situation. UPS or Atlas have the option to ignore that CBA language and pursue their goal in a US court of law at any time. They would win based on previous case law. If UPS or Atlas choose not to enter that fight, that’s on them. Anyone who thinks that FedEx is unwilling to take this situation to a US court and do whatever is necessary to prevail is either new or uninformed. A “gentlemen’s’ agreement” with our employer is not worthy of any give-back or negotiation. Section 1 is TA’ed and closed. We have no hope of re-opening that and demanding the ability to force FedEx to put an over-sized aircraft on a route with a freight demand that doesn’t support that size aircraft or not move freight in the belly of pax airline X. They have never agreed to that and likely never will. When the situation dictates a 757 on a Europe route, they’ll put one on that route. Losing flying temporarily to ASL due to lack of demand doesn’t mean that change is permanent. What many seem to ignore, is that our current domestic (enforceable) scope language is highly effective in protecting our flying that touches the US. The scope penalties we have in place make it far more expensive for the company to outsource our flying that touches the US, thus protecting our flying that doesn’t fall under the extraterritorial label.
I honestly don’t care how you vote. But please do your best to vote informed.
If only all the genius-du-jours had access to all the same information the NC, our elected reps and officers had throughout this process. Why did we even put them in a position of elected and appointed power if we all planned to do was immediately second guess them when none of us have had access to the process or the same information over the last two-plus years. It’s easy to lay down ultimatums that sound good without any real information to back them up.
What are “industry leading pay rates”? Is that a black and white definition? Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing? Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do? Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)? Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)? If so, fine – make your choice.
What’s a “concession”? What’s Delta’s definition of a concession? Just because they say their contract has none, is that really the case? Is “no concessions” realistic when one airline is dealing with a contract that has seen various iterations since almost the inception of ALPA when ours is barely two decades old? Once a CBA gets to the point where QOL issues are agreed upon and only pay, duration and other minor issues are a part of the equation, isn’t it easier to demand “no concessions”? Do you really think we were in a position to create only gains in a negotiation that ultimately ended up under the scrutiny of the NMB? Are the same vocal minority who spent the last two years-plus justifying “flying smarter” by accepting draft trips or AVA in place of their normal line trips now demanding results from our negotiating committee that are realistically impossible under the weight of those same choices? Did those “smart flyers” ever stop to think what their actions looked like to the company negotiators looking past PM and his team at our pilot group to see how unified we all were? Or did they simply assume that their choices would be viewed in the same light as another like minded pilot and ignore how it might come across to the actual target audience that really mattered. Many of you expect perfect results from our NC when your very actions put them in a position to have to bargain as reasonable members of a negotiation, not aggressors in a hold-up. Our company has never faced a unified, militant pilot group since we unionized and every contract cycle that has come to pass has offered an ever-weaker example. This time we had a chance but it was diluted by many of the very same pilots who now demand results from our NC that fail to acknowledge the reality created by their own choices. If those of your who opted to “fly smarter” don’t think your actions emboldened the company to delay and use their typical stall tactics, you’re sadly mistaken.
We’re fortunate that we didn’t get a quick deal in 2021. Whatever we agreed to would be far short of where the bar is today. Assuming our TA is approved by the MEC, if we get offered a logical rate that considers the reality of our pilot group and aircraft flown in comparison to our peers and their banded aircraft rates, I’ll consider it. I’ll weigh that against our improved retirement and other positive metrics in our TA and make my choice.
What I’m not going to do is listen to a bunch of alarmists who have less information than our elected representatives, officers and the NC. As smart and informed as you think you are, you’re not – period – dot. At this point, with no official information released, you’re doing nothing but undermining our own side in this negotiation. If this was just a matter of listening to 6000 individual opinions created with whatever information each individual pilot chose to gather in order to form their opinion, we would be far worse off than we are today. We elect these pilot reps to utilize the resources our dues can provide and make the best decisions on our behalf they can. Why would we charge them with that responsibility and then immediately undermine them with public discourse based on lesser information?
Finally, regarding scope: If you think what are effectively gentlemen's agreements at UPS or Atlas have any bearing on our situation at FedEx, you are sadly mistaken. Extraterritorial flying that doesn’t touch the US is unenforceable under the RLA. You can deny that if you want, but you’re incorrect. The fact that UPS or Atlas has decided to put a “feel good” statement in their contract with both sides acknowledging the lack of enforceable language in a US court of law but agreeing to abide by it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Arbitration isn’t the same thing as dealing with a court of law. The fact that Atlas was successful in arbitration over their scope language doesn’t mean the same results would occur with FedEx. If FedEx decided to take the scope argument to US court, they will win because there are four clear case law decisions supporting their claim. UPS or Atlas’s respect for their pilots CBA in no way transfers to our situation. UPS or Atlas have the option to ignore that CBA language and pursue their goal in a US court of law at any time. They would win based on previous case law. If UPS or Atlas choose not to enter that fight, that’s on them. Anyone who thinks that FedEx is unwilling to take this situation to a US court and do whatever is necessary to prevail is either new or uninformed. A “gentlemen’s’ agreement” with our employer is not worthy of any give-back or negotiation. Section 1 is TA’ed and closed. We have no hope of re-opening that and demanding the ability to force FedEx to put an over-sized aircraft on a route with a freight demand that doesn’t support that size aircraft or not move freight in the belly of pax airline X. They have never agreed to that and likely never will. When the situation dictates a 757 on a Europe route, they’ll put one on that route. Losing flying temporarily to ASL due to lack of demand doesn’t mean that change is permanent. What many seem to ignore, is that our current domestic (enforceable) scope language is highly effective in protecting our flying that touches the US. The scope penalties we have in place make it far more expensive for the company to outsource our flying that touches the US, thus protecting our flying that doesn’t fall under the extraterritorial label.
I honestly don’t care how you vote. But please do your best to vote informed.
06-09-2023, 09:08 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 752
Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs
What are “industry leading pay rates”? Is that a black and white definition? Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing? Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do? Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)? Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)? If so, fine – make your choice.
.
Regarding your position about pay rates, I think there are a couple of points to be broached. The first is that as recently as last year, UPS was the industry leader in WB pay rates. And they have an entire pay band that encompasses the 757. According to your logic, this should no be expected by their crew force. IMO, the fact that we have a NB banded rate below UPS rates means that we should have WB banded rates exceeding the highest WB rates since we are saving cost on the NB rates. I’m also curious if our WB rate in 2015 was below the legacies at the time. If it wasn’t acceptable then, why is it now?
Second, Delta negotiated a host of QOL items that bore the greatest amount of costs on this contract. Pay was a secondary item that was ultimately boosted by the shear nature of the inflationary environment we find ourselves in right now. Had we some other primary positions that were expensive, I could be moved on pay. But until I find that out, there’s no reason for us to concede on pay. To me, the flying we do warrants the premium pay in contrast to our passenger brothers and sisters.
The last point is simple. Our pay banding should be an advantage, not a drawback. The folks on the 777 should not be drawn down to the 767-300 pay rate. The 767/Airbus should be pulled up. Otherwise there is no benefit to the pay banding and we should drop it.
What are “industry leading pay rates”?
Delta and American
Is that a black and white definition?
Yes
Do we have to exceed DL’s max rate that won’t occur for 3+ years from now when we sign possibly this year, or is there a potential for a gradual ramp up just as DL is doing?
Personally, I think this has some variability. As long as we raise the bar with the ending rates in 2027 for the industry, I’m fine with it. How we get there doesn’t matter to me. But we need to exceed in both WB and NB rates.
Does it matter that only a fraction of their pilots actually get paid at that max rate when almost all of ours do?
No. Pay is for aircraft type alone. It has nothing to do with how a company manages its business. Markets determine rates and companies should not rely on employees taking costing hits to get ahead of the competition.
Is it truly reasonable to expect FedEx 767-300 and A300 pilots to make the same rate as the top producing aircraft at airline X (DL in this case)?
Was it unreasonable that UPS 757 pilots were earning more than UAL, AAL, and DAL 787/777/A350 pilots last year?
Are you really willing to turn down an overall rich and truly industry leading contract in terms of per pilot cost and outlay of real 2023 dollars by the company because of one metric (max 777/A350 rate at Delta)?
It depends on the overall value of the contract. But based upon the rumors, it’s not looking like an “overall rich and truly industry leading contract”. If the retirement A-Plan starts with a 2 and the DC matches UPS with cash over cap, I could be moved on pay rates. But I have my doubts.
Again, really appreciate you taking the time with your thoughtful response.
06-09-2023, 09:13 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 795
Originally Posted by oncewasgood
Bravo!! A well thought out logical post. I thought those were not allowed. Now wait for all those “smart flyers“ to come and claim you’re a “company man“ or “weak”. Meanwhile, they proved they were company men with all their extra above and beyond work the last two years. Oh, but that didn’t hurt us in prolonging negotiations 😂.
06-10-2023, 12:21 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,037
Emmerson Biggs. Spot on.
Finally a sane post. I said it before, we had leverage the last two years when we had record loads but guys had to keep flying overtime. The inherent greed was amazing. And, here we are now with guys complaining that the contract may not meet their expectations. We should have given our union and the NC the tools and leverage as soon as the last contract expired. But, we had guys who put themselves first and banked the bucks. Its disappointing to see so many contracts where we could have gotten more but not enough pilots cared about the group, just themselves.
Lets see what the TA has to offer and then make an informed decision. My guess, MEC approval and it gets voted in by the pilots.
And scope is a mute point as several have pointed out.
Finally a sane post. I said it before, we had leverage the last two years when we had record loads but guys had to keep flying overtime. The inherent greed was amazing. And, here we are now with guys complaining that the contract may not meet their expectations. We should have given our union and the NC the tools and leverage as soon as the last contract expired. But, we had guys who put themselves first and banked the bucks. Its disappointing to see so many contracts where we could have gotten more but not enough pilots cared about the group, just themselves.
Lets see what the TA has to offer and then make an informed decision. My guess, MEC approval and it gets voted in by the pilots.
And scope is a mute point as several have pointed out.
06-10-2023, 12:45 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Stan446
Emmerson Biggs. Spot on.
Finally a sane post. I said it before, we had leverage the last two years when we had record loads but guys had to keep flying overtime.
And .
Finally a sane post. I said it before, we had leverage the last two years when we had record loads but guys had to keep flying overtime.
And .
honest question….why can Delta fly maximum green slips and get an industry leading contract but we should not?
Is there something special of cargo guys not flying draft and pressure it provides compared to pax guys?
I was not here for the CoVID windfall but just trying to understand the logic here
06-10-2023, 03:57 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by Westerner
With the EUR domicile closure, i doubt the company is going to put 757s back on those routes. I think the company is planning to add more ASL 737s to meet demand.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
